Brazilian Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 We keep being told that to get the things we want, there has to be compromises on things we're not so keen on, which is fine and understandable, but who is it that wants 8-8-8, and an 11-1 voting rule???? Maybe those Well Society members recently persuaded by Dempster and Weir can explain... I wasnt persuaded but the reasons have been well posted, in this very thread for the 8-8-8 and its all to do with generating the money that in turn allows the distribution of wealth to happen sponsors and TV are supposedly waiting on the sidelines and its the belief, that if the League can make the offer of an increase in more competitive games ( the run up to the split, fresh teams facing each other thereafter fighting relegation etc)then contracts will be signed. voting? who knows, I feel I've been duped by them deliberately glossing over it ( but it will not be the first time, that the board get the chance to reverse that feeling by choosing to trust us and explain it, just a shame I feel that way for now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Maybe those Well Society members recently persuaded by Dempster and Weir can explain... Those members are quite entitled to their view and shouldn't have to justify it to anyone - its a perfectly valid position to take. I say live and let live - there will be those for and those against. Both sides are quite entitled to their own opinions and we should respect that. Likewise they have to understand that there are fellow Dossers who are opposed to the package and they are quite entitled to hold that view without feeling they have to explain themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmen Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 i might have missed it but is the society not getting a vote on the reconstruction plans? if we get a vote on newco surely this is a more important topic for us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another number Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Maybe those Well Society members recently persuaded by Dempster and Weir can explain... I think some at that meeting believed that the voting would be changed. For the part of the meeting I was at there was plenty chat about having to change everything in one go now but being able to modify that in the future, eg by scrapping the 888 and moving to a bigger league at some point after wealth was better distributed. I think this coupled with the belief of some that the voting system would be changed lead to at least a "yes" from some who may not have voted yes had they thought the voting system was staying. As I've said I couldn't stay until the vote so could be way off here but from what I heard I could see the above being a likely scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 While I wasn't sold on it, I could understand the club being in favour of the "all or nothing" package that included a voting change. If the voting procedure remains at 11 - 1 it becomes pretty pointless. Totally agree - I could have lived with all the proposals if they were seen as the means to an end, apart from the 11-1 voting structure. This is the one change which allows all the other suggested tweaks to take place in future. I was under the impression a change to this was part of the package until I heard the St. Mirren chairman. Quite rightly, this is the one thing he's not prepared to budge on. There's been some great coverage of this on Radio Scotland's teatime show this week including the interview with Stuart Gilmour. They also suggested Aberdeen had vetoed an earlier change to the voting structure as they wanted it in the whole package. So what's happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Grew Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 If its okay for 4 SPL teams to play 4 SFL1 teams in competitive matches for part of the season then why not just invite them into a 16 team SPL and forget this stupid 8x8x8? We are told they are not strong enough so wont be competitive enough to come into the SPL. So what is the truth? We are being lied to here in order that the powerbrokers get what they want. I suspect that this is Rangers back in a 12 team SPL within 3 years with no change in voting structure. Absolutely bang on. You should be putting yourself forward for election as the new Scottish football supremo because this is about the most sensible thing I have read or heard in this entire reconstruction debate. Top 8 in SPL split away. SPL bottom 4 combine with top 4 from SFL1/SPL2 with all clubs having points re-set to zero? What's been proposed is a total farce and now it's revealed today that the SFL clubs are not in possession of all necessary financial information. Why not just have one league of 16 teams, a second league of 14 teams and a third with only Celtic and Rangers in it and have them play each other every f*cking week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 What would the format of a 16 team league be? 15 teams home and away then a split and playing the 7 teams in your half once = 37 games? Haven't worked out how many match days that requires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well_Jaggy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I still prefer two larger leagues. 1 of 20, 1 of 22. play each other twice. job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I still prefer two larger leagues. 1 of 20, 1 of 22. play each other twice. job done. There are only ~ 21 full time teams in Scotland, so wouldn't make for a very strong bottom end of the top division, and major changes would be required if a team came up, or you'd have part time clubs in the top division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well_Jaggy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 I agree that in the short term the bottom end would be weak, but over time, the extra finances available would allow them to grow. It would also mean that those teams around the middle of the table with "nothing left to play for" would be able to field the younger guys to allow them to develop and encourage their growth. This would be good for the clubs as it allows them to sell these players on, and its also good for the national side as young Scots would actually get a chance to play competitive football at a young age. When we had to throw the young guys in during admin, it allowed them an early development and they have developed well. (Faddy, Hammy, Las, Pearson to name but 4) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another number Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 That was part of the argument put forward by Derek weir. He said that 8-8-8 would allow better wealth distribution then we could look at moving to a bigger league when there are more teams on an even footing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 That was part of the argument put forward by Derek weir. He said that 8-8-8 would allow better wealth distribution then we could look at moving to a bigger league when there are more teams on an even footing. Could that not happen with 12-10-10-10 and better distribution of money just the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another number Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I assume someone will anyway but can someone who's able to make the meeting stick a wee summary on here? Due to other commitments I cant make it but I'm keen to hear what's been said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Could that not happen with 12-10-10-10 and better distribution of money just the same? Exactly and not one of them will explain why the proposed system is better. I want a bigger league but understand that it may not be viable financially and would support a plan with a fairer distribution of finance and a merger of leagues. Where these proposals fail is in the league structure, the removal of guaranteed promotion/relegation and the voting stucture. I still can't understand why people think this will work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I assume someone will anyway but can someone who's able to make the meeting stick a wee summary on here? Due to other commitments I cant make it but I'm keen to hear what's been said That would be great, im in the same boat, but did submit a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I ll go for the 120 folk that got confirmation they could attend this meeting with the 'fans' have been chosen to toe the club line and it will be anouncced in the press that when club met the fans they agrreed with the board to vote for change ...job done or am i just a synical bastard ? Hope there are at least some akward questions asked . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I think your on a different planet if you think our club could organise that sort of conspiracy besides, does anyone think despite all the shouting and concern, that, 120 Motherwell fans would get off their arse and go listen? I considered it, but having heard it already and not agreeing with it, I thought it best to let others have the option instead. EDIT: I also do not get why folk think there is a vote that counts for anything? at an open meeting where anyone could show up simply by asking in advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 E mailing a request to attend would put plenty folk off ....it put me off going any way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Why did it put you off though? Most of us email every day. Seems organised to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Anyone hear Stewart Milne get tore into St Mirren's position? All the sweeter given that Aberdeen dug their heels in over 11-1 when the voting structure was on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Why did it put you off though? Most of us email every day. Seems organised to me. bit too orginised for MFC made me suspisious there are still loads who dont email especially the more mature fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Milnes a good one to tell anyone anything about running a football club .How many managers has he appointed and fired just as quick ? The guys a puddin Stick to building houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 E mailing a request to attend would put plenty folk off ....it put me off going any way I really can't see why. We were given an opportunity to go and listen to the Directors outline their views and put across ours in return. What more could the club have done? Its done far most than most to be honest. I could see the point if you applied to go along but were turned down for whatever reason and denied the opportunity to listen and be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Right I am just back from the open forum and I have to say I was extremely disappointed with the turnout. Only 20 or so fans turned up on the night in what I feel is an important issue for the club and the future of Scottish Football. I concede that some folk will have had other commitments but surely we could muster at least 100. Anyway they started tonight by taking a straw poll on the issue. 4 voted in favour of the proposals and 6 voted against the proposals and the remainder were undecided. I was one of people who voted against the proposals. The club went on to say that if the status quo remained they would lose at least £300k as a result of prize money dropping. They went on to say that the SKY have valued the 12-12-18 setup higher than the current setup in terms of TV revenues. Also from what was discussed I interpreted that there is a league sponsor lined up if they new system gets the green light. I also believe that this will be a gambling company and will be in the region of £1.8 million. I expressed that my main concern with the proposals was the split in to three eights especially the middle 8 points zeroing and going in to a new league. They said this would be a separate sub competition and any revenues generated by this play off system -TV for example- will be distributed between those 8 clubs. I argued that I don't believe TV companies will be interested in Raith Rovers v St Mirren etc and I don't think it would get more fans through the door anymore than it would in the current format. They admitted that the new set up was a huge gamble but they have to try it. I also expressed my concern that they were abolishing guaranteed promotion because the bottom four in the Premier would finish top 4 in the play off league. They also conceded that this was a possibility but with the extra money they clubs receive under the new proposals they would be able to put an infrastructure in place and be able to compete over time. Voting structure was an issue discussed and at no point was the 11-1 structure defended. They did say that they don't like it but it remains and they added that most issues will be 9-3. It's quite late and that's all the real detail I can remember. Once the discussion ended they had another vote and 13 were in favour and 2 were against the proposals and the remainder undecided. Again I voted against the proposals. The split structure is the main issue and I wasn't convinced by what the board had to say on the matter. I am yet to be convinced that there will be a commercial interest in the middle 8 with regards to TV companies. I also have real concerns about the 11-1 voting structure and certain issues being set in stone for 3 years just in time for Rangers to be back in the league. Although I remain against the proposals my position on the matter has shifted somewhat. I was planning on not renewing my season ticket and was set not to watch football under this new set up if it goes ahead. However, I will go back regardless of the outcome. The club are in a tricky position and they are not sleepwalking in to this new set up. They genuinely believe that this is the best way forward and will allow us to continue to progress in the way we have in the last few years. They are continuously looking 5 years ahead and have a vision for where we are going in the future. I have to respect that. It's not only the club but the fans too. In 2 meetings now the opinion in the room shifted. The more the club communicate the proposals the more people are convinced and that can't be denied. People may point to the low turnout but that's not the clubs fault is it? I believe that had 120 people been there then we would have got a similar outcome. Although, I am still against the proposals I am more understanding of the decision the club has to make and why they are in favour of the proposals. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelmaninOZ Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Right .... Although, I am still against the proposals I am more understanding of the decision the club has to make and why they are in favour of the proposals. Thanks for going and giving us a report on the proceedings NWF. I like the fact that the Club is looking forward with five year plans. Edited April 12, 2013 by Yabba's Turd No need to quote the entire post mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.